If someone walked onto carnegie hall and puked someone else would call it art. - Woody Allen

art produced in the past twenty years tends to be too meta for me; too much about answering the profound and profoundly dull question "what is art?" and less about just making something that inspires thought beyond that.

Check out illustrations by Mark Ryden or Hussar. They'll knock your socks off.

Video games are taken more seriously in another country (Japan), while here, in their youth, they're regarded as amusement for man-children and lacking in artistic merit.

Agreed. Play: Killer7

I have so much to say about this topic that I can't say anything at all or I will be typing here all day. Feedback overload. Good post.

(yes, videogames can be art.)

Some of the best video games ever made have no story. Tetris for one. Art at times may ask the viewer to make a logical conclusion of shape relationships from patterns and variation of patterns in the abstract, not just in story. Story is just a small part of the art of video games from characters to level design to all the codes the programmers make, I think it's the players interaction with the art that creates the art of video games.

LoL, It doesn't matter if something is or isn't Art, only that you get something out of it.

I see no reason why a video game should not be called art. Frankly, I've played games that I would consider more artisitc than a number of exhibits in the Tate Modern.

I think of art as a reflection of the intelligence of the perceiver. Like anything subjective, it's interpretation will always be open to contention. Didn't Picasso say something like 'Everything you can imagine is real'? Given that analogy I guess you can label anything you like as art, if it works for you.

I actually think the whole debate should go even deeper than this:

Are GAMES, a form of art in their own right?

I've always had a particular perspective upon computer games, but it was only through a recent conversation with someone about the definition of CRPG's, that really made me understand what it was that I was actually looking at.

Art, is all about one thing: story.

Pictures, writing, music, film etc. (all the recognised art forms), are all about TELLING stories...

Games, are about WRITING stories. (I'm hoping, (maybe too much?) that people will understand what I mean by this. For instance, if I post a list of chess moves for a game, then that would be telling the story of what happened, whereas the game itself, is about writing the story that's now being told, (and this can be seen for any and all games)).

Although games can also involve story telling, (from the snakes and ladders, (in snakes and ladders), to the opportunity and chance cards in Monopoly, all the way up to the more complex stories told in modern computer games), it's what the player can do, (i.e. the story the player writes - i.e. the game-play)), that makes it a game.

What makes computer games special, is two things: a, they allow us to combine all the forms of art together in a single piece, and b, they give more options and power for the stories the players can write.

Are computer games art? Of course they are, because they can combine all the forms of art in one, and because of that, they have the greatest overall potential too...

I think you are really selling American games short. You only point out blockbuster games as examples. If you only looked at blockbuster movies Hollywood wouldn't have much artistic merit either.

Fallout, Baldur's Gate, FEAR, Half-Life, those all seem like artwork to me.

All things can be art. I agree that art tells a story and can take you to any place in your mind. For myself, if I really like a video game, I will keep on replaying it even if I beat it just because I love to interact with the story. It is just like reading a book. I will reread the books I love because they take me somewhere and I love being apart of the story, so that makes it art for me. Now my problem with the article is that we digress from the main point of the article, "Are video games art?" It is easy to see that video games are art because they are stories within stories that have been created from the minds of artists, producers, directors, and story-writers. What gets me is the thought that sex and violence would even need to be considered in the debate. Not all art has sexual or violent references in it, but much of art that is considered to be important or revolutionary does have these elements. A great video game for me is The Legend of Zelda. In the original games, you just followed Links adventure, but you were a part of it and there were no real sexual references, unless you like those old 8-bit sprites. Sure there was a bit of violence in the fact that you are attacking monsters, but the essence of the art is in the story. So many people over-dramatize the idea of censorship thinking that by not incorporating these certain elements, they are missing out on something. A bare boob is just that, a bare boob. Is it really necessary to make the game an art form? The Mona Lisa is art in that someone created it and you get an emotional response just from the art work itself. She isn't naked and she never will be, but do we keep from calling it art because Da Vinci decided to not do a classic nude of this woman that nobody even knows? I don't think so. So yes I do believe that video games are an art form and to broach the subject is rather ridiculous because yes, you can glue a bunch of heads to a table and call it a masterpiece.

Art is anything put forth as art.

So video games can be art....

I have yet to get teary eyed over a video game story, but I have got my adrenaline up.

Pictures, writing, music, film etc. (all the recognised art forms), are all about TELLING stories...

Games, are about WRITING stories.

Amen.

The thing about Hollywood and most Tier One game executives is that they don't understand the difference between games and movies. They really think games are just like movies--only with some occasional user input. This was particularly prevalent during the early 90s when every game on CD was about full-motion video in the content. Stupid. Idiotic.

In a movie, someone is telling me a story. I'm not involved in any way--it's completely passive. In a well-designed game, I'm the one telling the story--MY story within that environment, as an active participant. The chasm between the two genres could not be wider.

Games are not movies, nor should they be.

So.... The true Bioshock is the exposed breast, which is the gateway to artistic merit?

Would love to see more discussion of what makes art, with less reference to the too-typical sex and violence bugaboos. Seems to me that gets in the way, here, of much larger issues for video games as art than whether I can get me some, err, hot coffee 'round the corner.

Can art be self-directed like a video game, and if so, is the player participating in the creation process?

Is a football game art, then?

Do large teams working with tight polygon budgets on tight deadlines, who ship with major bugs way too high a percentage of the time, really have the luxury of contributing the sort of polish and attention to detail that we expect from good art?

And isn't the treatment of sexuality somewhat stunted by the computer's current inability to bridge the uncanny valley? I mean, who wants to see robo-rubber-muppets get it on (besides, you know, Meadows, but we won't talk about that)?

Well if some nut job can glue a dozen mannequin heads to a table and call it art, just about anything created in some shape or form can be considered.

So.... The true Bioshock is the exposed breast

No the exposed breast is the first introduction to a game interface that most of us will experience.

:-p